slides - World Wide Web Consortium

W3C Workshop on Data and Services Integration
October 19 th 2011
Cory Casanave, Sjir Nijssen
Who
Cory Casanave
CEO Model Driven Solutions
Actionable Architecture Services
Object Management Group
Board
UML, SoaML, BPMN, EDOC, Etc.
Sjir Nijssen
PNA Group
CogNIAM Architectural Framework
Some current work
U.S. Information Sharing Environment
UML Profile for NIEM standard
Bank system integration through a canonical model
General Services Administration
Human Resources Enterprise Architecture
SoaML – Existing standard for services
An OMG Standard for Modeling Service Oriented Architectures
• Adopted from the UML® Profile for Modeling Services (UPMS) RFP
• SoaML supports the “A” in SOA
• Used for modeling SOA at the business, enterprise and technology levels
• Leverages Model Driven Architecture
A “Profile” of the Unified Modeling Language™
• Can be used with off-the-shelf UML tools as well as customized tooling
Tool support & implementations already exist
• Tool support – making it easy to create services models
• MDA Implementations – provisioning web services, business artifacts and implementations from
SoaML models
Includes
Service context, collaboration and composite services
Services as conversations – not just request/reply
Why a new standard for information
modeling?
Proposition
• Federation (information sharing, interoperability, shared services, etc.) is
the problem of this decade – it is costing productivity, lives and billions of
dollars annually. It is the pre-requisite to solving our problems in the
large. It is a problem faced by most CIOs in government and industry.
• We are calling this the “data problem”
Yet
• None of the standards we have directly target this problem. Not UML,
OWL, LoD, E/R, SOA, DoDAF, XML Schema, Common Logic or SBVR , etc.
• They are all built for other purposes and repurposed to solve the data
problem. Experts can pull these technologies together to solve a
problem, we want to make it easy to do so with an integrated SIMF
approach
• And, with all these solutions – we still have a pervasive problem
Why?
And can we fix it?
Pivoting through a conceptual model
The conceptual grounding approach
• A common and growing approach to the data problem leverages
abstraction: Defining a domain focused vocabulary as part of a
conceptual model that captures the domain semantics. Federation and
integration is achieved by relating various logical and physical
information structures to the conceptual model
• Information federation and integration is achieved via a “pivot” through
this semantic layer
• This approach is used in existing standards such as CCTS (Core
Components), ISO 20022, NIEM and is currently being utilized in OMG for
finance.
• In the majority of cases the “tool” used to represent these common
semantics and links is a spreadsheet, but UML and OWL are also used.
It is this approach we are seeking a standard for
Federation at all levels
Most of the conceptual modeling approaches depend on a single controlled
vocabulary as the “hub”
• The hubs used federate a controlled set of data structures, usually in a
single technology
• This single hub makes the federation solutions also stovepiped
• We need to be able to federate at all levels and between levels
• We need to support any number of “hubs”
• We need to federate the hubs as well
• We also need the hubs to be technology and data paradigm agnostic
• Federation applies to all “meta levels”
•
Primary use case is domain data
•
Secondary use case is federation of meta models – addressing the OMG problem
SIMF Supporters (Thus far)
ESA – Serve Valera (European Space Administration)
PNA-Group - Sjir Nijssen (Information Architecture Specialists)
Model Driven Solutions – Cory Casanave (MDA, Open Source & Data Integration)
NoMagic – Clarence Morland (UML Modeling)
Open Link Software – Kingly Idehen (Data Integration, SEMWEB)
EADS (Defense/Space Contractor) - Harald Eisenmann
Lockheed Martin – Tom McCullough (Defense/Space Contractor)
SWIFT - DELBAERE Marc (International Financial Exchange)
Information Sharing Environment – David Bray (Government Data Sharing Program)
EDM Council – Mike Bennett (Financial Community Organization)
Escape Velocity – Bob Daniel
SINTEF, Arne Berre
Others considering….
The European “FACT Modeling” consortia has committed to a submission and implementation
Conceptual
Domain
Models
Logical
Information
Models
Kernel
Subject focused conceptual
models define the concepts,
predicates, integrity rules and
terms of a domain that can be
related to each other
Solution focused logical
information elements
represent information
structures and integrity rules
that can use and extend other
information
Physical
Data Schema
SIMF Scope
SIMF Architecture
Model Bridging
Relations
Technology focused physical
data schema are grounded in
logical data models which
define their context and
semantics
Summary of requirements
SIMF Conceptual Model of SIMF
Conceptual Domain Model
Logical Information Model
Model Bridging Relations
Grounding in formal logic (Common Logic Default)
Textual and graphical notations
Bridging to common information modeling languages
ER, SQL DDL, XSD, UML, SBVR, OWL, RDFS
Metamodel and exchange format for OMG-MOF
How does SIMF relate to…
As a federation capability “overlap” with other views of information,
semantics and conceptual models is required and intended
It is expected that other standards will be proposed by submitters to fulfill
requirements as part of the SIMF specification
Since there are multiple choices for what to reuse and how they should be
integrated into the SIMF solution, the choice of standards to leverage for the
SIMF domain specific languages is the purview of the submitter and not
prescribed by the RFP
W3C Connections
Linked Open Data as the web data platform
OWL Semantics
XSD Data structures
Optional, RDF representation of SIMF model
Status
Still being worked on and socialized in OMG
Expected to be issued next OMG meeting
Find more here:
http://www.omgwiki.org/architectureecosystem/doku.php?id=semantic_information_modeling_for_federation_rfp
Email list and wiki are open – get involved!
Contact
cory-c at modeldriven dot com
sjir dot nijssen at pna-croup dot nl
Context Specific Information Representation
 In the telecom industry different context and conditions may require emphasizing
of different aspects and characteristics of essentially the same information
different business processes
specific modeling goals and needs
visualization and implementation requirements
 the existence of the overlapping modeling domains
The representation of a concept in one view may be different from the
representation of the same concept in another view as the context-specific details
that are relevant differ from view to view
Modeling graphs can be collapsed or expanded
Entity attributes may become hidden or complex
Information can be described using different yet compatible paradigms (DSLs,
UML and profiles, etc.)
As a problem space matures the concepts and representation of these concepts in
any particular view may change
 A specific use of the view may take a subset of that view and hence may not be
affected by a change and thus a “versioning” form and appropriate migration
support mechanism is required to account for this change dynamic
Domain Specific Representation Requirements
Other
Views/Perspectives
Service
Management
View/Perspective
Network Management
View/Perspective
Common Model
Core
Element/Device
Management
View/Perspective
Inventory
Management
View/Perspective
Use a Common Modeling Core to describe a system
Provide the domain oriented views for system users to match their perception of the
different aspects of the system
It is possible to provide multiple views of the same common model simultaneously
Overlapping Modeling Domains
SID
Modeling
Elements
contribution
Business
View Entity
Definitions
contribution
Shared
Semantic
Concepts
reflection
SID
Specific
Concepts
CIM
Modeling
Elements
Model Mapping
reflection
Profiles
and
Design
Templates
CIM
Specific
Concepts
Shared concepts can be mapped to SID model via the definition of Business View
Entities and to CIM model via Profiles and Design Templates
Going through model mapping exercise it will be determined, how well these
“discovered” concepts are mapped to the particular models/views via existing model
construction/partitioning mechanisms
SIMF Kernel Model [6.5.1]
SIMF shall specify or adopt a “Kernel” Model that defines a set of kernel
concepts. The set of kernel concepts shall be those that are sufficient to precisely
and intuitively define the Kernel Model and all other models in the SIMF
specification (the CDM, LIM and MBR languages).
The Kernel model shall be defined as a dialect of common logic as defined in ISO
standard 24707, optionally extended with additional ontologies and formal
languages such as “Z” or OWL. The kernel shall be defined such that languages
defined in the kernel are likewise dialects of common logic.
All statements made as part of any model expressed in a SIMF language (CDM,
LIM and MBR) shall have a precise and well-defined mapping to the SIMF Kernel
without information loss.
Submitters are encouraged to use and reuse existing languages and logics to the
extent possible in defining the Kernel. This includes but is not limited to IKL and
Conceptual Graphs.
If, for any reason, submitters find common logic not suitable as a foundation
logic submitters may propose another logic with justification for the choice.
Language to express a Conceptual
Domain Model (CDM) [6.5.2]
SIMF shall specify or adopt a language or ontology that can be used to
specify conceptual domain models (CDM). The conceptual domain
modeling language shall be sufficiently general to capture the information
modeling concepts needed to satisfy requirement 6.5.9.
The following are examples of features of conceptual modeling that may be
supported:
Types and instances, Properties , Associations and hierarchies of
associations , Constraints, Expressions, Whole-part, Units and Quantities,
Parameterization of types and patterns, Multiple names for concepts, Open
and closed world interpretations
All concepts shall be identifiable such that artificial reification of concepts is
not required. Moreover, SIMF should be usable at any “meta level”, i.e. for
data, data definitions or language definitions (M0, M1, M2)
Language to express a Logical Information
Model (LIM) (Optional: 6.6.1)
SIMF may use the SIMF Kernel to specify or adopt a language or ontology for
logical information modeling (LIM).
The LIM language, if speciufied, shall be capable of representing data
context, data structures and viewpoints as may be found in the languages
referenced in requirement 6.5.9.
The LIM Language shall not be bound to any particular data representation
language..
The LIM Language shall be related to the CDM Language such that one or
more concepts defined in a CDM can be used to define the semantics of
information elements in one or more LIMs.
As there may be overlap between the CDM and LIM languages, the degree of
integration and similarity between the LIM and CDM language is a design
choice of the SIMF submitter.
Submitters are encouraged to use and reuse existing languages and logics to
the extent possible in defining the LIM.
Language for Modeling Bridging
Relations (MBR) [6.5.3]
SIMF shall use the SIMF Kernel to specify or adopt a language or ontology for Model
Bridging Relations (MBR).
The abstract syntax and semantics of the SIMF MBR language shall include capabilities to
semantically relate identical and similar information concepts that have been
independently conceived and represented in information models using the same or
different information modeling languages. This shall include differences in name, structure,
representation, property sets and underlying semantic theories. The MBR language shall
also be able to represent disjointness and difference between concepts.
This RFP requires that models at all levels (CDM, LIM) may be separated into independent
modules and that many of these modules may be independently conceived. The SIMF MBR
language shall enable these models to be federated such that the similarity and difference
between elements defined in each can be understood and captured.
The set of model bridging relations shall be specified by SIMF submitters: the following are
examples of possible bridging relations, some of which may be overlapping:
• “same as” , “equivalence” , “disjoint”, “projection”, “narrower than”, “broader than”, “subset”,
“superset”, “union”, “intersection”
The degree of integration and similarity between the LIM, CDM and MBR languages is a
design choice of the SIMF submitter.
Submitters are encouraged to use and reuse existing languages and logics to the extent
possible in defining the MBR. This includes but is not limited to IKL, PRR, RIF and SWRL.
Support for Conceptual, Information
Model and MBR Notation [6.5.7]
The SIMF language shall define at least one graphical and at least one
textual concrete syntax for specifying models in the SIMF languages – the
CDM,LIM and MBR.
The SIMF notations are intended for use by a wide range of users from
domain experts to architects and data modelers.
Precision, intuitiveness and building on familiar diagrammatic constructs are
required. Note that submitters should not assume that all models will use
the SIMF notations as federation with existing (non SIMF) models is
required.
The graphical notations shall be specified using the OMG diagram definition
standard.
Bridging relations to E/R, SQL, XSD,
UML, SBVR and RDF/S [6.5.9]
SIMF shall itself be federated with common languages for defining
information models.
SIMF shall define MBR models that bridge the SIMF CDM metamodel with
existing metamodels for ER, XSD, UML, SBVR, OWL, relational and RDF/S.
These bridges are required to federate information defined in these existing
languages. In line with the SIMF philosophy, it is a federation, not a
translation, meaning these models will be related to a SIMF conceptual
model in support of federating information models defined in these
languages.
AB Comments from Pete & Elisa
Pete & Elisa expressed the opinion that we have all we need for conceptual
domain and logical modeling, that the only “value add” is the model bridging
relations.
My position is that we need domain specific languages better tailored to
these problems, however we should absolutely reuse and build from
foundations we have. It should be up to submitters to define what new or
existing languages should fill the roles asked for in SIMF. Existing languages
could be proposed, as is or profiled.
In addition, the model bridging relations are not meaningful without some
understanding of the semantics of the elements on the ends of the bridges.
Bridges need to be supported by the semantics of their ends. We would
have to commit to something to represent these layers.
Changes have been made to encourage reuse, recognize the value of
existing languages and make the LIM optional.
What is needed seems more appropriate as an ADTF topic than an AB topic.
SIMF itself is modular [6.5.4]
The concepts that are defined in the abstract syntax and semantics of the
SIMF languages shall be defined using language specification modules.
These modules will represent a separation and layering of concerns intended
to facilitate reuse of the concepts in those modules.
Support Semantic Grounding [6.5.5]
The SIMF CDM Language shall support semantic grounding of concepts but
shall not require that all concepts are formally grounded.
Where there are informal but widely, in the relevant community, accepted
common concepts;; the SIMF CDM Language shall allow utilization of those
informal concepts and definitions.
Domain models and viewpoints may have their own “private” concepts that
have no grounding at all.
By grounding we mean that each set of statements in a SIMF model
correspond to one or more statements in the formal language used to define
the SIMF kernel.
Support for Views and Viewpoints
[6.5.6]
The SIMF LIM language shall define and provide for a concept of “views” and
“viewpoints” represented by LIM models.
The SIMF language shall provide for the same information to be related
across views that share the same underlying concepts using MBRs.
Views and viewpoints shall be able to be dynamically created by architects
by assembling the models appropriate to particular stakeholders and
stakeholder communities.
• A viewpoint specifies a reusable set of criteria for construction and selection of model
elements, addressing particular stakeholder concerns.
• A viewpoint may be partially expressed through the meta model elements that it
exposes, but may also include less structured expressions.
• A view is a representation of part of a system that conforms to a viewpoint.
Requirements for the graphical
notation [6.5.8]
1. The graphical notation shall provide overview functionality; the ability to
reduce the detail of a model for presentation to stakeholders less
concerned with such detail.
2. The graphical notation shall provide model validation facilities that can
be used by the business user to test that a model is consistent with a
SIMF language.
3. The graphical notation shall provide for incremental specification
(specifications that are only partially complete), while providing the
option to require that a model is complete.
Web Accessibility [6.5.10]
The SIMF language shall provide for modeling concepts and model content
to be web addressable resources, have a unique web identity and be dereferenceable based on that identity in support of Linked Open Data.
Consideration should be given to other standards in process such as
MOF3RDF.
MOF Metamodel [6.5.11]
SIMF shall define a MOF or SMOF metamodel that captures the “abstract
syntax” of the CDM, LIM and MBR models. The MOF Metamodel augments
requirements 6.5.1 through 6.5.4 with a MOF model that provides for the
support of the MOF technologies, including interchange via XMI. The MOF
metamodel shall be able to capture all of the data necessary to store and
exchange a SIMF model but is not required to capture all of the semantics of
that model as will be defined in requirements 6.5.1 through 6.5.4.
Interchange Format [6.5.12]
The SIMF language shall define or utilize a concrete syntax for the exchange
of models or model fragments.
Grounded in explicit, concrete
examples [6.5.14]
The SIMF language shall be explicitly validated by a representative set of
examples that demonstrate its applicability to the definition, extension,
federation and integration of information models.
There shall be a minimum of 4 examples drawn from different domains.
The representative set of examples of models shall also be validated.
Glossary
SIMF shall define a glossary of terms used in the SIMF specification where
those terms are not defined in a lexical reference of choice.
Optional Requirements
6.6.1
Specification of the Logical Information Model
6.6.2
Support for RDF and Linked Open Data
6.6.2
Reuse of the Information Meta Model (IMM) Specification